Israel presses on with plan for 6,000 new settler homes

Source: Reuters

JERUSALEM - Israeli officials said they would press on with plans this week to build 6,000 homes for settlers on land claimed by Palestinians, defying criticism from Western powers who fear the move will damage already faint hopes for a peace accord.

Stung by de facto recognition of Palestinian sovereignty in a U.N. General Assembly vote last month, Israel announced it would expand settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

An Israeli Interior Ministry planning committee on Monday gave preliminary approval for 1,500 new homes in the Ramat Shlomo settlement.

The panel will now start discussing plans for another 4,500 homes in two other settlements, Givat Hamatos and Gilo, in back-to-back sessions that could run into next week, ministry spokesman Efrat Orbach said on Tuesday.

3. they are the chosen people and have been for what, 3000 years? nt

6. Jerusalem is growing in population and they have to go somewhere.

The so-called 'settlement' sites like Ramat Shlomo, Gilo and Givat Ha'matos are well within the municipal borders of Jerusalem. By 2030, the city's population will expand to one million residents from 800,000 today (33% Muslim, 2% Christian and 65% Jewish).

Where are these extra 200,000 residents going to go? The expansion of Jerusalem's residential areas is essential for the natural growth of all segments of the population. It enables Jewish and Arab families alike to grow and remain in the city. The capital of a sovereign nation cannot be expected to freeze growth rather than provide housing to families of all faiths eager to make their lives there.

Some want a divided Jerusalem but divided cities will not stand. The same people who celebrated the unification of Berlin a couple of decades ago now call for the division of Jerusalem.

8. they are not building these settlements in Israel. They are building outside of Israel

in Occupied Territory. There is not and never has been any debate among sane and rational people that this is completely illegal. Now if you support the single state solution and are suggesting that Jews and Arabs both have the right to build and live anywhere they want in Jerusalem and between the Jordan and the Sea - well fine. But there are legalities that have to be worked out before such a policy can be implemented.

18. I am defining sane and rational as the unanimous opinion of ever credible legal body in the entire

world without one single exception. The Arab world and the Palestinians have been supporting a two-state solution for decades, Unfortunately Israel has refused this offer even when the Palestinians opened negotiations with a willingness to renounce their claim n 78% of their homeland. Israel still refuses any two - state solution that allows the Palestinians actual control over the remaining 22% of their own homeland.

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.

For purposes of comparison, the following is an earlier draft discussed by Arab foreign ministers on 25 March, 2002, in advance of the summit:

The Council of the Arab League, which convenes at the level of a summit on March 27-28, 2002 in Beirut, affirms the Arab position that achieving just and comprehensive peace is a strategic choice and goal for the Arab states.

After the Council heard the statement of Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz in which he called for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel, and that Israel declares its readiness to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories in compliance with United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 and Security Council resolution 1397, enhanced by the Madrid conference and the land-for-peace principle, and the acceptance of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital, the Council calls on the Israeli government to review its policy and to resort to peace while declaring that just peace is its strategic option.

The Council also calls on Israel to assert the following:

Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the remaining occupied parts of south Lebanon to the June 4, 1967 lines.

To accept to find an agreed, just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in conformity with Resolution 194.

To accept an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian lands occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and with Jerusalem (al-Quds al-Sharif) as its capital in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1397.

In return, the Arab states assert the following:

To consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over and to enter into a peace treaty with Israel to consolidate this.

To achieve comprehensive peace for all the states of the region.

To establish normal relations within the context of comprehensive peace with Israel. The Council calls on the Israeli government and the Israelis as a whole to accept this initiative to protect the prospects of peace and to spare bloodshed so as to enable the Arab states and Israel to coexist side by side and to provide for the coming generations a secure, stable and prosperous future.

It calls on the international community with all its organisations and states to support the initiative.

The Council calls on its presidency, its secretary general and its follow-up committee to follow up on the special contacts related to this initiative and to support it on all levels, including the United Nations, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the Security Council

By Seth AckermandiggThe seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon, 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn't clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

Locking in occupation

To understand what actually happened at Camp David, it's necessary to know that for many years the PLO has officially called for a two-state solution in which Israel would keep the 78 percent of the Palestine Mandate (as Britain's protectorate was called) that it has controlled since 1948, and a Palestinian state would be formed on the remaining 22 percent that Israel has occupied since the 1967 war (the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem). Israel would withdraw completely from those lands, return to the pre-1967 borders and a resolution to the problem of the Palestinian refugees who were forced to flee their homes in 1948 would be negotiated between the two sides. Then, in exchange, the Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel (PLO Declaration, 12/7/88; PLO Negotiations Department).

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.Violence or negotiation?

The Camp David meeting ended without agreement on July 25, 2000. At this point, according to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian leader's "response to the Camp David proposals was not a counteroffer but an assault" (Oregonian editorial, 8/15/01). "Arafat figured he could push one more time to get one more batch of concessions. The talks collapsed. Violence erupted again" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). He "used the uprising to obtain through violence...what he couldn't get at the Camp David bargaining table" (Chicago Sun-Times, 12/21/00).

But the Intifada actually did not start for another two months. In the meantime, there was relative calm in the occupied territories. During this period of quiet, the two sides continued negotiating behind closed doors. Meanwhile, life for the Palestinian population under Israeli occupation went on as usual. On July 28, Prime Minister Barak announced that Israel had no plans to withdraw from the town of Abu Dis, as it had pledged to do in the 1995 Oslo II agreement (Israel Wire, 7/28/00). In August and early September, Israel announced new construction on Jewish-only settlements in Efrat and Har Adar, while the Israeli statistics bureau reported that settlement building had increased 81 percent in the first quarter of 2000. Two Palestinian houses were demolished in East Jerusalem, and Arab residents of Sur Bahir and Suwahara received expropriation notices; their houses lay in the path of a planned Jewish-only highway (Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 11-12/00).

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

Settlements off the table

In February 2001, Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister of Israel. Sharon has made his position on the negotiations crystal clear. "You know, it's not by accident that the settlements are located where they are," he said in an interview a few months after his election (Ha'aretz, 4/12/01).

They safeguard the cradle of the Jewish people's birth and also provide strategic depth which is vital to our existence.The settlements were established according to the conception that, come what may, we have to hold the western security area , which is adjacent to the Green Line, and the eastern security area along the Jordan River and the roads linking the two. And Jerusalem, of course. And the hill aquifer. Nothing has changed with respect to any of those things. The importance of the security areas has not diminished, it may even have increased. So I see no reason for evacuating any settlements.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak has repudiated his own positions at Taba, and now speaks pointedly of the need for a negotiated settlement "based on the principles presented at Camp David" (New York Times op-ed, 4/14/02).

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

20. This is really funny.

You say your side consists of the unanimous opinion of ever credible legal body in the entire world without one single exception and then you go on to cite at least a dozen commentators who disagree with your position concerning Camp David. Yes I know they are not part of the "unanimous opinion" of the entire world.

When the Arab countries rejected the UN mandate in 1948 for a dual state was the UN not part of the "credible legal bodies of the entire world". If you are going to have an opinion it might help to produce sources that are not Arab propaganda sites.

23. The Chief Israeli negotiator and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo ben-Ami said that he would have

rejected the Camp David 2000 offer if he had been a Palestinian leader. He stated this clearly in his book; Scars of War Wounds of Peace: The Arab/Israeli Tragedy and he reiterated it in numerous public interviews.

To to have accepted the Camp Dave 2000 offer would have turned the Palestinians Territories into a non-viable state - disconnected into multiple cantons. The Taba conference of January 2001 did offer some hope - but the Israelis - not the Palestinians walked out. Although to be fair, they were on the eve of Israeli elections which everyone foresaw a win by Sharon who absolutely vowed that he would not accept any agreement with the Palestinians. This was all very unfortunately because all sides did state and the European Unions records does support the claim - that they were actually getting close to an agreement. But it was certainly not the Palestinians who walked away. You can read this document which was published later in Haaretz :

The issue of legality of settlements is not debatable. Even Judge Burgenthal the one dissenting Judge in the International Court of Justice ruling that Declared the Wall in to be illegal; although he did not agree with the 14 other judges regarding the wall,, he stated in his opinion brief that if the Wall or parts of the Wall is being built to protect the settlements, those parts of the Wall are ipso facto illegal, Because the settlements themselves are illegal. (link: http://www.asil.org/insigh141.cfm) This is simply not debatable among credible independent legal experts. EVERYONE knows perfectly well that all the settlements in the Occupied Territories are completely illegal; EVERYONE. What we hear to justify the illegal settlements is a game of endless mumbo-jumbo and comical sophistry that makes the Flat Earth Society Sound rational in comparison:

Resolution 252 (1968)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

267 (1969)
Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

271 (1969)
Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers

446 (1979)
Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

452 (1979)
Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

The illegality of the Settlements is not a debatable subject
This is not even remotely controversial or arguable. Any territory occupied after June 4, 1967 is illegal; period. It is just plane ridiculous that this is still being debated; kind of like hearing that there still is a "Flat Earth Society".

Under International Law any settlements built on land or people transfered from the occupying power to the occupied territory is a breach of several articles of International Law including the Fourth Geneva Convention and a number of United Nations Security Council Resolutions. This is not arguable or debatable. This is not even controversial, much less debatable. In fact under the July 9, 2004 decision regarding the illegality of the Wall even the one dissenting vote (Judge Buergenthal of the United States) in the 15 to 1 decision agreed that all the settlements occupied after June 4, 1967 are illegal.

is just one of many, many, many U.N. Security Council Resolutions on the matter:

UNITED
NATIONS S

Security Council
S/RES/465 (1980)
1 March 1980

Resolution 465 (1980)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2203rd meeting
on 1 March 1980

The Security Council,

Taking note of the reports of the Commission of the Security Council established under resolution 446 (1979) to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, contained in documents S/13450 and Corr. 1 and S/13679,

Taking note also of letters from the Permanent Representative of Jordan (S/13801) and the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Chairman of the Islamic Group (S/13802),

Strongly deploring the refusal by Israel to co-operate with the Commission and regretting its formal rejection of resolutions 446 (1979) and 452 (1979),

Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,

Deploring the decision of the Government of Israel to officially support Israeli settlement in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,

Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and its consequences for the local Arab and Palestinian population,

Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of private and public land and property, and water resources,

Bearing in mind the specific status of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for protection and preservation of the unique spiritual and religious dimension of the Holy Places in the city,

Drawing attention to the grave consequences which the settlement policy is bound to have on any attempt to reach a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,

Recalling pertinent Security Council resolutions, specifically resolutions 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967, 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 and 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, as well as the consensus statement made by the President of the Security Council on 11 November 1976,

Having invited Mr. Fahd Qawasmeh, Mayor of Al-Khalil (Hebron), in the occupied territory, to supply it with information pursuant to rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure,

1. Commends the work done by the Commission in preparing the report contained in document S/13679;

2. Accepts the conclusions and recommendations contained in the above-mentioned report of the Commission;

3. Calls upon all parties, particularly the Government of Israel, to co-operate with the Commission;

4. Strongly deplores the decision of Israel to prohibit the free travel of Mayor Fahd Qawasmeh in order to appear before the Security Council, and requests Israel to permit his free travel to the United Nations headquarters for that purpose;

5. Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

6. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices and calls upon the Government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem;

7. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories;

8. Requests the Commission to continue to examine the situation relating to settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly the water resources, with a view to ensuring the protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation, and to keep under close scrutiny the implementation of the present resolution;

9. Requests the Commission to report to the Security Council before 1 September 1980, and decides to convene at the earliest possible date thereafter in order to consider the report and the full implementation of the present resolution.

27. It is outrageous to fault or criticize the Palestinians for doing what you would have done - what I

would have done - what any Jew would have done - what any Arab would have done - what anyone would have done - and fought to defend their homeland. To quote Ze'ev Jabotinsky, "No indigenous people have ever willingly accepted the usurpation of their homeland without a fight to the death and the Arabs of Palestine will do the same."http://www.mideastweb.org/ironwall.htm

Or David Ben Gurion:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion

No people who believe they have the means to resist are going to accept some outside group coming in and claiming their country - or half their country. You wouldn't accept it - I wouldn't accept it. No one would accept that.

But all of that aside - The Palestinians and the Arab countries have now offered an peace settlement based on a Palestinian state in only 22% of their homeland with East Jerusalem as its capital. If Israel continues to reject the two-state solution by making it impossible through relentless expansion into the Occupied Palestinian Territories- they will not be able to have a state that is both Jewish and Democratic. They will have to choose which one it will be.

32. I don't click on anti-Semitic sites.

34. I don't click on anti-Semitic websites either and if you are at all familiar with the history of the

conflict - at all - at all - you would be well aware of the moral debates within the Zionist movement and you would have already heard those quotes, you would already know that transfering civilian population into an area under occupation is illegal and you would know questioning the right of Israel to expand illegal settlements into the Occupied Territories is certainly not anti-Semitic. Every single progressive Jewish and Israeli human rights organization feels exactly the same way.

9. Except it's not routine city expansion, 9thward

It's the creation of a conjoined ring of sundown towns - you do know that these places aren't open for Arabs to move into, right? - with the stated intent to separate Jerusalem away from Palestinian access. While this is going on, Arab families are being evicted from their homes in East Jerusalem. Never mind they're being built on land that in no way shape or form actually belongs to Israel...

"Families of all faiths" c'mon, you can't be that clueless about the situation... can you?

11. I have been to Jerusalem twice.

I have seen the situation with my own eyes not through the filter of the propagandists. There are people of all three major faiths living in Jerusalem. No one is denied access to places of worship or reverence. The land does belong to Israel.

21. Fine you don't think the West Bank is part of Israel.

I get that. But it is. Shouting no, no, no, will not change that. When you attack someone and lose territory that is a consequence of war. The Arabs attacked numerous times and lost. If you don't believe in that concept there is almost all of Europe and Asia and much of the Americas to work on before you get around to Israel.

25. Driving the Jews into the sea is a founding principle of Hamas.

The Palestinians put them in power (of course Hamas helped it along by murdering their PA-Fatah opposition). As long as that is their goal I do not expect Israel to take actions which will amount to suicide.

29. Hamas is a bit more complicated then you have learned from the sites where you get your info

"SHLOMO BEN-AMI: Yes, Hamas. I think that in my view there is almost sort of poetic justice with this victory of Hamas. After all, what is the reason for this nostalgia for Arafat and for the P.L.O.? Did they run the affairs of the Palestinians in a clean way? You mentioned the corruption, the inefficiency. Of course, Israel has contributed a lot to the disintegration of the Palestinian system, no doubt about it, but their leaders failed them. Their leaders betrayed them, and the victory of Hamas is justice being made in many ways. So we cannot preach democracy and then say that those who won are not accepted by us. Either there is democracy or there is no democracy.

And with these people, I think they are much more pragmatic than is normally perceived. In the 1990s, they invented the concept of a temporary settlement with Israel. 1990s was the first time that Hamas spoke about a temporary settlement with Israel. In 2003, they declared unilaterally a truce, and the reason they declared the truce is this, that with Arafat, whose the system of government was one of divide and rule, they were discarded from the political system. Mahmoud Abbas has integrated them into the political system, and this is what brought them to the truce. They are interested in politicizing themselves, in becoming a politic entity. And we need to try and see ways where we can work with them.

Now, everybody says they need first to recognize the state of Israel and end terrorism. Believe me, I would like them to do so today, but they are not going to do that. They are eventually going to do that in the future, but only as part of a quid pro quo, just as the P.L.O. did it. The P.L.O., when Rabin came to negotiate with them, also didn't recognize the state of Israel, and they engaged in all kind of nasty practices. And therefore, we need to be much more realistic and abandon worn-out cliches and see whether we can reach something with these people. I believe that a long-term interim agreement between Israel and Hamas, even if it is not directly negotiated between the parties, but through a third party, is feasible and possible."

-------------------

Collin Powell and several other prominent mainstream leaders support dialogue with Hamas
and signed a letter which includes a paragraph very clearly stating so - along with calling for real talks which covers substantial real issues.

Some of the signatories frankly surprised me:

"As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys. Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point."

Partial list of Signatories:

Zbigniew Brzezinski -Former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter

Lee H. Hamilton - Former Congressman (D-IN) and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group

Carla Hills - Former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush

Nancy Kassebaum-Baker - Former Senator (R-KS)

Thomas R. Pickering - Former Under Secretary of State under President Bill Clinton

Brent Scowcroft - Former National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush

Theodore C. Sorensen - Former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy

Paul Volcker - Former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System

William E. Odom - Lieutenant General, U.S. Army (Ret.); Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Professor of Political Science, Yale University; Former Director of the National Security Agency, 1985-1988

Christopher Patten - Co-Chair of International Crisis Group; Chancellor of the University of Oxford; Former EU Commissioner for Foreign Relations; Former Commander in Chief and British Governor of Hong Kong

Edward L. Peck - Former U.S. Chief of Mission to Iraq; Former Ambassador to Mauritania

Larry Pressler - Former U.S. Senator (R-SD) & Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Member, Council on Foreign Relations

Theodore Roosevelt IV - Managing Director, Lehman Brothers

J. J. Sheehan - General, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.)

Eric Shinseki - General, US Army (Ret.)

Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

Stephen J. Solarz - Former U.S. Congressman (D-NY)

Robert and Renee Belfer - Professor in International AffairsJohn F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Phil Wilcox - President, Foundation for Middle East Peace; Former U.S. Ambassador at Large; Former Special Assistant to the Undersecretary for Management at the U.S. Department of State; Former Director for Regional Affairs, Bureau for Middle Eastern and South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Lawrence B. Wilkerson - Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.); Pamela C. Harriman Visiting Professor of Government, College of William Mary; Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University; Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Department of State; Former Director, U.S. Marine Corps War College

Joseph Wilson - Ambassador in President George H. W. Bush’s Administration; Special Assistant to President Clinton; Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council

Frank Wisner - Former U.S. Ambassador to Zambia, Egypt, the Philippines and India; Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Former Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs; Vice Chairman of External Affairs at American International Group

from Washington Notes

-----

By AHMED YOUSEF

Originally Published: November 1, 2006 in the New York Times

"Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya."

"HERE in Gaza, few dream of peace. For now, most dare only to dream of a lack of war. It is for this reason that Hamas proposes a long-term truce during which the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can try to negotiate a lasting peace.
A truce is referred to in Arabic as a ''hudna.'' Typically covering 10 years, a hudna is recognized in Islamic jurisprudence as a legitimate and binding contract. A hudna extends beyond the Western concept of a cease-fire and obliges the parties to use the period to seek a permanent, nonviolent resolution to their differences. The Koran finds great merit in such efforts at promoting understanding among different people. Whereas war dehumanizes the enemy and makes it easier to kill, a hudna affords the opportunity to humanize one's opponents and understand their position with the goal of resolving the intertribal or international dispute.

Such a concept -- a period of nonwar but only partial resolution of a conflict -- is foreign to the West and has been greeted with much suspicion. Many Westerners I speak to wonder how one can stop the violence without ending the conflict.
I would argue, however, that this concept is not as foreign as it might seem. After all, the Irish Republican Army agreed to halt its military struggle to free Northern Ireland from British rule without recognizing British sovereignty. Irish Republicans continue to aspire to a united Ireland free of British rule, but rely upon peaceful methods. Had the I.R.A. been forced to renounce its vision of reuniting Ireland before negotiations could occur, peace would never have prevailed. Why should more be demanded of the Palestinians, particularly when the spirit of our people will never permit it?

When Hamas gives its word to an international agreement, it does so in the name of God and will therefore keep its word. Hamas has honored its previous cease-fires, as Israelis grudgingly note with the oft-heard words, ''At least with Hamas they mean what they say.''

This offer of hudna is no ruse, as some assert, to strengthen our military machine, to buy time to organize better or to consolidate our hold on the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, faith-based political movements in Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Turkey and Yemen have used hudna-like strategies to avoid expanding conflict. Hamas will conduct itself just as wisely and honorably.

We Palestinians are prepared to enter into a hudna to bring about an immediate end to the occupation and to initiate a period of peaceful coexistence during which both sides would refrain from any form of military aggression or provocation. During this period of calm and negotiation we can address the important issues like the right of return and the release of prisoners. If the negotiations fail to achieve a durable settlement, the next generation of Palestinians and Israelis will have to decide whether or not to renew the hudna and the search for a negotiated peace.

There can be no comprehensive solution of the conflict today, this week, this month, or even this year. A conflict that has festered for so long may, however, be resolved through a decade of peaceful coexistence and negotiations. This is the only sensible alternative to the current situation. A hudna will lead to an end to the occupation and create the space and the calm necessary to resolve all outstanding issues.

Few in Gaza dream. For most of the past six months it's been difficult to even sleep. Yet hope is not dead. And when we dare to hope, this is what we see: a 10-year hudna during which, inshallah (God willing), we will learn again to dream of peace.

Ahmed Yousef is a senior adviser to the Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniya.

33. I don't see a question mark in your post.

36. I'd suggest you get a functional grasp of the basics before you proceed.

For instance, while the Geneva conventions allow for military occupation of enemy territory, it expressly forbids population transfers - whether this is purging that land of the resident or annexing it to your own for colonization. Marching into a territory does not make it yours. This was decided in the aftermath of World War 2, which if you may recall, involved certain nations marching into other people's territory and going "mine now."

Also, you may want to work on your phrasing a bit; "The Arabs" are a broad ethnic group stretching from Morocco in the west to southwestern Iran in the east, north to Syria, south to the horn of Africa. Perhaps you meant Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan? I'll forgive you if you didn't know about the United Arab Republic, though.

Also you might want to study a bit into who's attacking who, when, and why.

44. Seriously man... learn the basics.

Even the nuttiest anti-Palestinians around here don't bother with that "Jews made the desert bloom" stuff... Next you'll be trotting out that "land without a people" argument.

Fact is, the southern levant has always been a pretty prosperous place. It's arid, but not a desert. It has good soil from all the volcanic activity that was going on even fairly recently (geologically speaking), is arranged in hills and plains rather than the mountains of the northern levant (Lebanon) and harbors the region's primary source of fresh water (the sea of Galilee and its river). It's been an agricultural region since the development of agriculture, though perhaps not to the scale of the Nile Valley or Mesopotamia. Which is why it's been continuously populated since the neolithic. In recent history the region has served as the breadbasket of two empires, supplied them during multiple wars, and was the world's primary source of citrus, olives, and lentils until the mid-50's and the green revolution and global agriculture projects.

Contrary to both you and Snooper, it's never been a "shitty patch of sand and rock."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:40 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If the alerter can't be bothered to comment, I can't be bothered to vote to hide the post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No comments were provided by the juror, either. And fundies are stupid.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: BFD.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

14. Fascists looking for Lebensraum.

15. This took to Tuesday to be released? You release bad news on days of worse news.

The Newtown shooting on Thursday was the day to release this, maybe the following Saturday or Sunday, but NOT the following Tuesday. Bad timing and Israel is very good at releasing bad news, if they can on a day or the day after even worse news so it does NOT get front page coverage.